|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: Guns and rosy hope to change the odds of mass shootings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But maybe doing something can happen in a measure that could start at least cutting the odds of mass shootings here. The sponsors of the bill – which would improve background-checks for gun sales compiled by the National Instant Criminal Background Check system – are Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and John Cornyn (R.-Texas); co-sponsors include Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
Ed.: More RINOs trying to stop Americans too poor to legally contest erroneous NICS denials from exercising their RKBA. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/23/2017)
|
As usual, no provision for commenting.
"But maybe doing something can happen in a measure that could start at least cutting the odds of mass shootings here."
The operative word being "could", which indicates that the author know that there is no empirical proof that it would do so.
In fact, no less an anti-gun tyrant than Diane Feinstein admits that gun control laws don't stop crimes.
And that, dear friends, underscores the real issue - the goal is not to address crimes, but to disarm the law-abiding American public, because the denizens of government believe that no one should have the ability to oppose government.
But isn't that precisely why the 2A was introduced and ratified? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
